Posted on 08/28/2009 8:21:55 PM PDT by rxsid
New Law suit filed in the Western District of Texas. Flight Surgeon Cpt Connie Rhodes, MD refuses to be deployed to Iraq until Obama’s legitimacy for the position of the Commander in Chief is verified Orly Taitz, Esq
Attorney & Counselor at Law
26302 La Paz ste 211
[snip]
(Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice
U.S.D.C. Western District of Texas
Submitted August 28, 2009)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Western district of Texas
CPT Connie Rhodes MD,
Plaintiff,
v.
Dr ROBERT GATES, UNITED
STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, de facto
PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES,
Defendants.
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Plaintiff Captain Dr. Connie Rhodes has received what appear to be facially valid orders mobilizing her to active duty with the United States Army in Iraq on September 5th, 2009 (Exhibit A). Captain Rhodes is both a US army officer and a medical doctor, a flight surgeon. On May 15th of this year 501 brigade out of Fort Campbell, KY, currently stationed in Iraq, has requested a support of medical personal in Iraq. Two days ago, August the 23rd, an order was given through the chain of command via e-mail for Captain Rhodes to arrive in San Antonio TX, Fort Sam Houston for Tactical Combat Medical Care Course (TCMC) to be held from August 30th till September 4t and next day, on September the 5th to arrive in Fort Benning in Columbus GA for immediate deployment to Iraq for a period of one year and twelve days from September 5th, 2009 until September 17th 2010. Captain Dr. Connie Rhodes wants to serve her country and fulfill her tour of duty, however as a US army officer and a medical doctor she has severe reservations regarding legitimacy of Barack Obama as the Commander in Chief and repercussions of her service under his orders, particularly in light of mounting evidence of him having allegiance to other Nations and citizenship of Kenya, Indonesia and Great Britain.
...
Continued: "http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=4038"
Folks tried, and the cases were thrown out on "Standing", which you have spoken negatively of, or on other "technical/procedural" grounds.
Like KGB, or DGI (Cuban counterpart to KGB).
If the Christians in Action were O's sugar daddy, I hardly think he'd be allowing Holder to go after them. Pretty much the same story with the DIA. But maybe not so much the modern FBI, but it doesn't seem J. Edgar's style.
That's a misnomer. The President is not "sworn into office". Swearing the oath is just another requirement to hold the office. The Constitution only says it must be done "efore he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:". What makes someone President is meeting all the requirements, including swearing the oath, and then the clock. The oath need not be given by the Chief Justice, or any judge or justice. For example LBJ was first sworn by a local Federal Judge in Dallas. Assuming the requirements have been met, the person becomes President at 1200 EST, January 20th following the election. Arguably we have several short periods with no President, because the oath was not sworn before that time.
You might think that a technical distinction, but then as you say, that's what the law is about. We've made a coronation out of the swearing, but it's not a coronation, it's a ceremonial version of a Constitutional requirement, that could just as well be done by some clerk. Better if it was, IMHO.
I called you out on the lie and you never responded.
Lets see, here is a quote from you: “Here's the other problem. Obama has a document that is prima fascia evidence of his birth in HI.”
I then asked you to show us what document you are speaking of. I then explained that no document has ever been shown to a legal authority on this issue nor to the American people.
Of course at this point you wouldn't just admit you were wrong and or didn't know enough about the subject of Barry's BC or his eligibility.
That would have been decent and honest of you.
NOOOOOO. You then told us all that you said “IF” he had this document. And that I was putting words in your mouth.
You never said “if”. You said he “has”.
Of course when I pointed out your LIE on this thread, you ran off to bed.
Maybe my words are “Sleepy Noise” to you. But the way I see it, you have proven yourself to be not very truthful.
So before you give us all your 25 years worth of opinions, (And yes, that is all it is, your opinion), please use that legal experience to explain the outright lie you gave.
Some legal expert, can't even keep his story straight or have the balls to admit when he/she is wrong.
I am not a lawyer but I seem to read frequently how state and federal authorities often if not usually cooperate to keep dual jurisdiction issues to a minimum.
If the MPs or whoever marches in and arrest Dr. Rhodes, the Constitutionalists will have another martyr which presumably Obama and his supporters would seek to avoid since it messes with the primary message that they want to keep in the public eye. This may be especially true given that the cost of medical education is a pivot point in the national health care debate (I am thinking of Mary Vigil’s question to Obama at the June 24, 2009 town hall meeting).
There seem to be a lot of “ifs” stacked up before the Hawaii Health Department director would even be called upon sign an affidavit in your scenario. We have seen most of the conventional predictions in the past torpedoed by unexpected events and turns in the cases.
Perhaps you can give some generics as to your take on whether an affidavit from Dr. Fukino would constitute best evidence or just hearsay.
So far I think we have various written statements to the states themselves by Obama entering the primaries, in which he validates himself as an NBC, and his autobiography (essentially an unsigned statement which I would have trouble believing any court would accept as proof of anything).
But even if Dr. Rhodes is dragged away in chains, it seems to me that Obama’s credibility with the military and the public will (sooner or later) be dragged off with her.
In good faith, military service of all forms, is essentially personal sacrifice for the good of the country as best as can be determined by the individual at a given point in time (otherwise, IMHO, it’s essentially Nuremburg redux). Perhaps some folks have a fundamental issue with that... but should we?
The thing that scares me is that there is already so much dust kicked up about Obama’s NBC qualifications and BC that the only thing I can think of that would get the issue off his back is a bigger (manufactured) crisis. Obama by his past actions seems to me to demonstrate that he has little concern for legal niceties and the best of American tradition and honor. If the can is kicked far enough down the field, the fundamental question of whether we are governed by people or law is postponed indefinitely, essentially invalidating the document that differentiates the U.S. from the rest of the world’s governments and ultimately unraveling the fabric that made this nation once so great.
I was talking about our country, the United States, after it became a republic.
“The US Civil War”
Please forgive me. My mind read “The American Revolutionary War.” I need another cup of decaf.
The Civil War was also awful. I can’t even bring myself to see movies about it.
Odh knows it all...Except that every week end “they” appear in pairs....and we are on to the pattern....I can ditto everything you just said...Even gave him a link. ALas, he’s so into himself he doesn’t need additional knowledge...Just “ignor” him.
Modertors will monitor his posts and take the proper action.
“the lack of a true adversarial system.”
In those days, Gato, all the JAGs worked for the SJA and the commander, so there was the appearance of unlawful command influence. That’s why the Army and Air Force came up with a completely separate command chain (Trial Defense Services and AFLOA, respectively), to avoid the “lack of a true adversarial system”. Second, it sounds like you were sitting on an administrative discharge board, since double jeopardy would likely bar a military prosecution for the same offense of which he’d already been convicted in civilian court. There are exceptions, but few.
Colonel, USAFR
THAT law does does not make the distinction and you can read the US Supreme court to understand the point.
Been there ..done that..over and over again.
It takes less than 1 hour to come up with the information by doing a google search. You can start with the info on my profile.
One quick question. Is this the same lawsuit that was denied by the court on the day it was filed?
First off, thanks for your service to our county.
Yes, the career/moral equivalent of jumping on a grenade.
This whole situation - Obama, the case, the suppression is unprecedented in our entire history.
We can only hope and continue to fight the good fight.
And may God bless you as well.
Where and when did the marriage take place? Can you say with 100% certainty, that the marriage took place in Maui, and not somewhere in Africa? Are your basing the marriage in Maui off of what Barry has said?
The divorce papers say Maui. It may never have happened. There may have been a marriage in Kenya. Even that would be problematic under a later law that was passed.
I have done a lot of research on this..you are just beginning. Apparently, Apuzzo has done very little ,if any..or if he did..he is ignoring it.
Keep researching.
That's quite a statement. How would you know that? A presumption, based on far far less than the info re: his parents marriage (which isn't a whole lot).
The marriage may have taken place in Maui. The marriage may have taken place in Africa. The marriage may have taken place elsewhere, or may not have taken place at all. Like most everything else with Barry, we don't know a whole lot.
What we do know, is that there is a court record regarding the divorce.
Until there is actual proof to the contrary, it would be a prudent legal challenge to his eligibility to use his own public admissions of being "governed" at birth by a foreign power, against him (IMO).
You are just beginning because apparently you have no idea that it is likely that he was not a British citizen. Unless you are leaving that point out on purpose in order to misinform people.
Go with the divorce papers.
If true, he very likely was not a British citizen. You could try to use his own admission against him..but it still doesn’t make him a British Citizen. He can proclaim he was a British citizen all day long..it doesn’t make him one.
And of course, that and that alone clearly means I'm "just beginning." Because I have no idea that it is "likely" he wasn't British at birth. Of course.
"Unless you are leaving that point out on purpose in order to misinform people."
Is this some kind of attempt to label me as either a troll and/or obot? I'd really like to know.
"Go with the divorce papers.
If true, he very likely was not a British citizen."
And why would it be "very likely" he wasn't a British citizen?
"You could try to use his own admission against him..but it still doesn’t make him a British Citizen. He can proclaim he was a British citizen all day long..it doesn’t make him one."
And your strategy would be what?
Always good to hear from you, null. =]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.